XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: tony.kingsbury@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/09/2016 12:17 AM, {:-]))) wrote:   
   > noname wrote:   
   >   
   >> It is not the color or tint of the spectacles through which you view   
   >> reality that matters, it is whether what you see through it is true or   
   >> false.  Looking through a viewpoint tinted blue, or tinted atheist, or   
   >> tinted fundy-Christian, it doesn't mater a bit what shape or color the   
   >> world you see has.  What matters is what the world you see does, and what   
   >> significance you perceive in that.  When multiple people who have different   
   >> viewpoints see the same thing, the same reality, behaving in the same way,   
   >> they are seeing the same thing, through different sets of spectacles, each   
   >> adjusted to the eyes of the viewer who wears them.  In other words there is   
   >> no one true shape or color for spectacles,   
   >   
   > If there is no one true shape or color of the spectacles,   
   > it might be said views are all true and all false, or, partial,   
   > since there are no views, if there are no views, without them.   
   >   
   >> but there is just one reality,   
   >   
   > I'd call that a paradigm of sorts.   
   > I like that one as much as I like others.   
   >   
   > If everyone sees it different and is involved   
   > then at another level there are as many realities   
   > as there are viewers of what is said to be the one.   
   >   
   > In other words, the viewers are not apart from   
   > but are a part of the one which makes it many.   
   >   
   > The one Venn that includes them all   
   > is the union of all that intersect each other.   
   >   
   >> that can be seen truly through many kinds of viewer.  Or more often, seen   
   >> falsely through delusion rooted in desire, or misunderstanding rooted in   
   >> the naive ignorance of childhood.   
   >   
   > The desire or misunderstanding is real enough.   
   > Naive ignorance of childhood is also real.   
   >   
   > To discount those as being false can be called, semantics.   
   > Calling them, incomplete, might be a different word.   
   > Or, pointing out how they are problematic   
   > might assist one in problem solving.   
   > Assuming one has problems   
   > with desires, etc.   
   >   
   >>  And even if one finds the magical   
   >> microscope focus point, attempting to compare notes with others is   
   >> difficult, because they may be hearing what you see, or smelling something   
   >> entirely different from what others hear.   
   >   
   > Because their realities are different.   
   > Because their experiences differ.   
   > Which is why their minds differ.   
   > And none are exactlly alike.   
   >   
   > To think there is what is called the one true reality   
   > independent of all viewers might be called a   
   > sort of hypothetical situation.   
      
   Agreed. To 'think' that there is one true reality independent of all   
   viewers is a hypothetical situation.   
      
   On the other hand, to *know* the one true reality, is to know that it's   
   the same for everyone.   
   This is not a hypothetical, but an actual situation. The universe, as it   
   exists here and now.   
   >   
   > By consensus, people may accept such a notion.   
   > At the same time, within each within the one, all differ.   
   >   
   > - in an ocean of realities   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)